If the ultra-leftists running NBC News hadn’t jumped the shark long ago, they have certainly jumped it now. Watch and learn how temporarily restricting travel from areas rife with terrorism is just like murdering 6 million people:

"Everyone says 'I wonder what I would have done if I was around when the Holocaust was going on' and this is the time to know" pic.twitter.com/H4dsRELeHQ

The border wall doesn’t have to be built from scratch. Parts of it are already in place (e.g., at San Diego and Yuma) and working great — for now. Here Democrat congresscritter Maxine Waters eggs on a mob of moonbats to tear the wall down:

The Boy Scouts were too constructive, positive, American, and worst of all wholesome for the Left to tolerate; this inspired a relentless campaign to corrupt them. Congratulations, moonbats; you have achieved another sick victory:

The Boy Scouts of America announced Monday that it will allow transgender children to enroll in scouting programs.

That is, if leftist parents convert their little girl into a trophy transsexual by declaring her to be a boy, that girl will be accepted as a boy by the Boy Scouts, regardless of the effect on the girl’s mental health or on sanity in general.

In 2015, the BSA was forced to accept openly homosexual scout leaders, defiling this once venerable institution beyond recognition and making it unsafe to trust with children. Having been conquered by liberals, it will now serve as a social engineering laboratory.

What a relief; despite the systematic discrimination inflicted on whites in the name of Affirmative Action, and the violently hostile rhetoric directed at whites by the Black Lives Matter crowd, we don’t have to worry about antiwhite racism, because according to our institutions of higher learning, there is no such thing:

A tri-college coalition in Pennsylvania has published a resource guide on “allyship and anti-oppression” that brazenly affirms people of color cannot be racist towards white people.

The guide, made available for students attending Haverford, Swarthmore, and Bryn Mawr Colleges, provides a seemingly-exhaustive list of terms on the topic, including “reverse racism,” which, it then contests, is not actually existent.

Racism cannot be directed at whites because academics define it as “institutionalized oppression,” which only oppress blacks, according to ivory tower ideologues living in an alternate reality modeled on the Deep South of the 19th century.

In contrast to antiwhite racism, microaggressions most definitely exist according to the liberal scheme. Eskimos have 50 different words for “snow.” Likewise, educrats employ multiple synonyms and variations to describe the microaggressions that they perceive everywhere around them.

[T]he guide expands upon the ubiquitous “microaggression,” also offering definitions for terms such as “microassault,” “microinsult,” and “microinvalidation,” with a “microinvalidation” being “explicit racial derogations characterized primarily by a violent verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior or purposeful discriminatory actions.”

“Microinsults,” on the other hand, are “behavioral” or “verbal remarks or comments that convey rudeness, insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity, or other marginalized identities,” while “microinvalidations” are “verbal comments or behaviors that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person with a marginalized identity.”

Needless to say, none of these things can be inflicted on whites, because to aggress, assault, insult, and invalidate whites is a noble act of Social Justice, since whites deserve this treatment for having been successful historically.

Colleges rake in massive fortunes in return for filling young people’s heads with this corrosive idiocy.

The moonbats running California have raised the ante. Not only are they unwilling to cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration law, they may not even be willing to pay federal taxes:

The state of California is studying ways to suspend financial transfers to Washington after the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities, KPIX 5 has learned. …

“California could very well become an organized non-payer,” said Willie Brown, Jr, a former speaker of the state Assembly in an interview recorded Friday for KPIX 5’s Sunday morning news. “They could recommend non-compliance with the federal tax code.”

If this escalates much further, Calexit might begin to seem feasible.

In fairness to the many Californians who are not moonbats and deserve to stay in America, Calexit should be based on this map:

Green can go; white stays.

La-La Land and the Gay Area are welcome to leave. They can even have a coastal land bridge if that will help persuade them to go away. But the rest of the state is still part of America.

The war of extermination against all things explicitly Southern is no longer in the headlines — yet it continues:

A teacher who displayed the Confederate flag to middle schoolers in his history class was forced to retire amid concerns that he was displaying a symbol of hate.

70-year-old Sutter Middle School (Folsom, CA) teacher Woody Hart hanged both a Confederate flag and a Union flag during his lesson on the Civil War.

The guy was just trying to teach a history class. But context doesn’t matter when it comes to “symbols of hate”:

“We recognize that regardless of context, to many of our students, families, and staff, the Confederate flag is a racist symbol of hate,” [a statement by the Folsom Cordova Unified School District] reads.

The forbidden flag was apparently discovered and removed before school even began, but nonetheless a student may have seen it and been traumatized by the reminder that going on 2 centuries ago there was such a thing as the Confederacy.

Any ideology, even a benevolent one, is terrifying when it achieves this extreme of intolerance — and liberalism is far from benevolent.

Some have compared the wave of anti-Trump protests that have erupted since the inauguration to the Tea Party. You might call it the anti–Tea Party. The Tea Party wanted less government; the tantrum-throwing moonbats we see now want more. The Tea Party consisted of decent, normal, responsible people. The recent protests consist largely of this:

During an anti-Trump protest in Seattle this weekend, an activist associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement took to the megaphone to voice her support for, among other things, “killing people,” and “killing the White House.”

She implied that the President should be killed; denounced capitalism, white people, America, patriarchy, et cetera; and also barked,

Shrillary has been keeping a low profile recently, only crawling out from under her rock to bark “That’s not who we are!” and then promptly disappearing again. Now we know why. It appears she has been tied up in legal proceedings:

Authoritarian moonbattery has reached such an extreme in California that the wonderfully useful single-use plastic bag has been banned. Stores are still allowed to provide you with paper or reusable bags to carry your purchases, but are required to charge at least 10¢.

Justifications for this petty tyranny range from ridiculous to absurd:

Liberals in San Francisco proclaimed that the city’s ban would reduce global warming and America’s reliance on foreign oil. Yet only about 3% of plastic bags are produced using oil, according to a 2014 report from the Reason Foundation. Most are made from natural gas, which is now cheap and abundant in the U.S. Many reusable bags, on the other hand, are derived from oil, and produced in Asia to boot.

Research has shown that paper, cloth and reusable bags produce many times more greenhouse-gas emissions over their life cycles. A 2011 study performed for the United Kingdom’s Environmental Agency found that a paper bag, compared with a plastic one, was 3.3 times worse in terms of greenhouse gases. The study also found that paper bags resulted in more water and air pollution.

As for the litter pretext,

Turns out plastic bags make up a tiny share of litter, less than 1% in most cities, according to a 2013 survey by Environmental Resources Planning. A 2009 litter survey by Keep America Beautiful found that plastic bags make up less than 1% of objects caught in storm drainers.

Yet moonbats have decided that plastic bags are politically incorrect, so they must be banned. Shoppers are expected to pack their groceries into laughably inefficient not to mention unsanitary cloth bags instead. The result is disease:

A 2012 study by two university academics found that emergency-room admissions in San Francisco from food-borne illnesses surged after the city imposed its ban.

As with all authoritarian moonbattery, an economic price must be paid:

A 2012 study by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that Los Angeles County’s ban shifted commerce to incorporated cities where plastic bags remained free and legal. In the months after the ban passed, employment dropped by an average of 10.4% at grocery stores in the county’s unincorporated area.

Yet the California Grocers Association went along with the bag-banning insanity, largely because charging for bags will help them make up for the losses inflicted by a higher minimum wage.

As always, when Big Government grows too large, businesses collude, and it is the customer who pays.

Transportation isn’t about transportation. It’s about human rights. You have a right to be transported from here to there by other people, just as liberals believe that you have a right to be provided with medical goods and services at other people’s expense.

Moonbats have been yelling for years that housing is a human right. It stands to reason that food must be too.

To declare something is a right means that the government is justified in forcing other people to provide it to you, essentially on a slave basis.

One day everything we desire will be a right. That’s when utopia will be achieved, just as it was in the Soviet Union.

Not everyone is happy to see Obama go. Many foreigners would love to have him back. Then the federal government would be sure to keep using our money to take away our jobs and give them to people from other countries:

A pro-immigrant program was expanded under President Obama that paid U.S. firms $2.7 billion to hire 180,000 foreign “students,” jobs that likely otherwise would have gone to Americans, according to a new report.

The so-called “Optional Practical Training” was supposedly set up for foreign students but actually included no training and put college graduates in the high-paying jobs for three years.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which on Friday urged President Trump to stop the program, estimated that the jobs paid $60,000, suggesting a total of $11 billion in annual wages lost to American workers, over $32 billion over three years.

The program paid companies a $10,000–$15,000 bonus to hire foreigners, on top of the bonus of evading payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. No wonder the workforce participation rate has been cratering.

The monstrous growth of the federal leviathan has become a serious threat to the nation, and doing anything about it is not a priority for either major party. JD Rucker of the New Americana, Soshable, and the new Federalist Party offers a three-pronged approach to attacking this swelling menace in the following guest post:

Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his disastrous New Deal, conservatives have coalesced around the concepts of reducing overreach of government, particularly federal government. From Barry Goldwater to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan, leaders have emerged at times of great need to rein in Washington, DC and the incessant expansion of influence politicians have over the fate of the nation and its people.

Until recently, the Republican Party has been the champion of limiting government. Reagan’s push for “New Federalism” represented two things: the last great attempt to reduce the size of government and the revelation that the seat of power within the GOP was lukewarm at best toward the idea once Reagan left office. We’ve learned over the past 2 decades that only a small portion of GOP politicians truly believe in small government principles, culminating in Republican majorities in the House and Senate that spent more than their Democratic-majority predecessors.

The challenge isn’t in taking actions to reduce government overreach. The real roadblock is in coordinating the efforts to take on the three areas of overreach simultaneously. Attacking one or two at a time is futile because of the intertwined nature of the three. To know how to make a real difference in DC, we must understand the nature of the three forms of overreach: budget, bureaucracy, and power. Read more »

Andrew Cuomo says he will not cooperate with sensible if poorly implemented temporary restrictions on people coming into the country from terrorist hot zones. Speaking as the Voice of New York, he proclaimed by way of explanation that the state has “no tolerance for intolerance.” This has the Blaze rolling on the floor:

That statement is curious because, back in January 2014, Cuomo made a very pronounced statement on the “tolerance” of New York when he said, “Extreme conservatives have no place in New York” after some Republicans in the state voted against gun control legislation called the SAFE Act.

“Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are?,” Cuomo wondered at the time. “Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

The rigidly intolerant tolerance personified by Cuomo may be a form of schizophrenia.

Down the slippery slope we slide, from abortion to euthanasia to medically justified murder:

A Dutch woman doctor who asked an elderly patient’s family to hold her down while she administered a fatal drug dose has been cleared under Holland’s euthanasia laws.

Mailonline reported that the patient fought desperately in an attempt not to be killed.

Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Regional Review Committee, which considered the case, said: “I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith…”

The victim suffered from dementia.

As healthcare becomes more socialized, our contempt for the value of life will accelerate. Why should taxpayers have to finance medical care for people who are through contributing to society? It’s best for all concerned if we just kill off the useless eaters — so long as we murder them “in good faith.”